BREAKING: Trump Confirms VP Names Ahead of 2024 Election

Breaking news today on Sekulow as President Trump confirms VP names ahead of 2024 election. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. Well, folks, we do have a preview of some vice Presidential potential picks by President Trump. He was asked the question, names were given out. I will say before we play the bite from President Trump and the question, one of the biggest cheers came from one of our colleagues here on the Sekulow broadcast, Tulsi Gabbard, who was on the show yesterday.

But remember this as well. I noted that it was not until July 15th of 2016 when Donald Trump announced Mike Pence as his nominee. And that was a time when he was Governor Pence and going through a very tough time in Indiana. So a lot of things can change between now and when the VP pick actually happens. But because we're not having much of a primary so far, in fact, we still haven't gotten a decision out of the Supreme Court on Colorado. That did not come today. We're monitoring that.

We also did not get a decision on the stay on the immunity case out of D.C., whether that stay is going to be granted or not. So we're watching those out of the Supreme Court. But I do want to play the sound quickly for everybody, because I think it's always interesting to see who's on the top of the President's mind and who are the grassroots responding to. The audience has been asked who they think would be a good choice, and various names came up. One of them was, of course, Vivek Ramaswamy. He's made a big splash. Ron DeSantis, who's making an appearance today in South Carolina, we just found out. Obviously, Tim Scott, Byron Donald. And a big presence here for Tulsi Gabbard.

Very interesting. And Kristi Noem as well, I should say, are are they all on your short list? And I mean, he confirmed it right there that they're all on the short list. I will say, you know, that that's interesting because, one, Kristi Noem probably didn't get a fair there because it was kind of overshot. Tulsi was still getting applauded. And Kristi Noem did get some. And we've done work for the governor.

I think that's great. You know, a great potential pick. I just think it's very interesting who people are reacting to when they hear the name Logan. And it's people who have been who some have been very close to President Trump, like Kristi Noem, and others like Tulsi Gabbard, who have been new to our side of the movement. Someone that you may have a hurdle to get over.

I'm looking even at comments. There's some people like, well, I like her on your broadcast, but I'm not sure how I feel about her because a lot of people know she ran as a Democrat for President not that long ago, four years ago, but has obviously had a massive change. Or really you've had the Democratic Party have a massive change, and she's kind of fallen in line with a big new group of voters. So it would not be unlike President Trump, I feel like, to go for someone who's a bit more outside, a bit interesting, brings in a new crop of people, doesn't just activate your own supporters. The question is, does picking someone who's an outsider make people less excited about voting for a Trump presidency?

I kind of don't think it does. I think those voters are there. So you can find someone who can maybe grab that one or two percent that maybe we're going to go with a RFK Jr., or we're going to go with a third party, or maybe just we're disenfranchised by the Biden administration.

That may be a good idea. Now, obviously, we also saw some really great words about Tim Scott, another great person, another friend of this show. You do, though, go, does Tim Scott bring anybody new to the table? I'm not so sure he does. I think that he probably brings in all of your traditional Republicans and your Trump, you know, MAGA kind of Republicans. I think what he does is kind of like a Mike Pence move. He brings in your social conservatives, people who might be nervous about Trump.

You would believe he could certainly govern on day one, if necessary. I think also missing from the list, because that was just a list of people that she was talking to there, Governor Sanders has been talked about a lot from Arkansas, J.D. Vance from Ohio, and there's always the unknown. Yeah. People are saying Carrie Lake.

Where is she? I see those in the comments. People are asking a lot of those ones who were...

It kind of depends on where you're doing the forum. Some of those are the ones who have been advocating more for it. We haven't really heard from President Trump saying those are people, but when it was specifically asked, are these people on your short list?

He said, yes, these are all on it. So he's confirmed a good chunk of people that are there. Who do you think should be the VP candidate? Look, we're not biased here. Even people on our own team.

No bad answers. 1-800. Go ahead. 1-800-684-3110. Call us now. All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We do want to take your calls first about these short list names.

So we played the bite for you. So President Trump was asked by Laura Ingraham at a forum. And again, I think it also depends on where you're having the forum. Was this town hall in... South Carolina. So if you're in South Carolina, you may not be thinking as much about what's happening in Arizona to Kerry Lake because you're in South Carolina and you're following different candidates. Certainly people like Tim Scott, who's from home state. You might just notice different people. And the people have actually also been on this campaign trail, which we heard a lot from. So Tim Scott, Rama Swamy, Ron DeSantis. By the way, President Trump did not take that moment, by the way.

And I thought it was interesting to even take a shot at. And I think that shows you too, once a primary is over. When Trump, he said, it's over, that's moving on. And he adores him. If you got a...

If President Trump started getting polls back showing this is the pick that puts you over the edge. They're both in Florida, so there's a little problem there, but... It seems like there's some workarounds. I've seen a lot of people say, well, here's how you... Even top level politicians.

There are workarounds. I don't think that's where he goes. I don't think Ron really wants that. And then of course he said Kristi Noem. Laura Ingraham said Kristi Noem and then Tulsi Gabbard, Tulsi Gabbard, of course, part of our secular team here. And she was on yesterday. We knew she was having some interesting meetings and she was making a lot of news about NATO because she was defending some of President Trump's recent comments about...

He's been talking about all the time that people in NATO have got to pay their fair share, that the US cannot be the only person to send the resources to train the armies and to fight Europe's wars, that they need to invest in their military as well. And she's gone on to defend. We want to get your calls. And while we play this, 1-800-684-3110.

If you were advising President Trump and you had to pick today, and listen, that pick could change three months from now, but you had to pick today, who would you pick for his VP nominee? We're not going to criticize you. There's no bad answers here. So give us a call.

1-800-684. I don't know about no bad answers. There are some bad answers you can give. But you don't have to be afraid of... We're not just going to mock you unless...

I don't know. Most of our listeners are very smart. They have some good thoughts. I'm already seeing them lining up.

They all have good, even ones that aren't on that list. So I look forward to hearing from you guys. 1-800-684-3110. But we should play while we get some of these calls cleared. This is kind of how it's all started. This was yesterday with Tulsi Gabbard right here on this broadcast.

Tulsi, I wanted to kind of reframe it a bit before we wrap up. Back to sort of the conversation around NATO. You obviously have seen a lot of what's happened with President Trump over the weekend. And you had Hillary Clinton coming out making statements. You've obviously dealt with that before, let's just say.

And you know what that can mean. But what if NATO members could come into compliance? Do you think at this point as an organization, is this something we should be considering still supporting? I think this is a very real conversation the American people need to have. And the fact that people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden don't want us to have this conversation should make us even more eager to force the question on the American people and our representatives in our government. This kind of analysis has not happened largely because the warmongers in Washington won't allow it. Anytime anyone asks, well, what is the relevance of NATO to our national security today?

We know why it was formed originally. And you look through the history of NATO and how the world has changed. And yet NATO really hasn't changed and hasn't asked themselves this question about what their mission is. What's wrong with having the conversation when Hillary Clinton and others like her respond to people who ask relevant, important questions with smears like you're a Putin puppet, or you're a useful idiot, or you are just doing the bidding of Putin. Those aren't substantive responses. There has to be a very real dialogue about the pros and cons and the very real costs that come from any of our foreign policy decisions that we are making.

So I think we should go ahead and take a phone call because look, I see Emory in your comments. A lot of people understand we brought Tulsi on as a commentator here because we do want to have somewhat of a diverse group of people. If you have Mike Pompeo and you have Tulsi Gabbard, you're going to get very different answers.

So these aren't necessarily people who are pitching as vice President or President, someone who can give you within still somewhat of our world, a different point of view. And I feel like that's very important, but Rachel is calling in Texas. She has her thoughts. She's watching on Rumble. Thank you Rumble, the free speech platform.

We appreciate it. You're on the air. Hey Rachel.

Hi. My pick right now today would be Tulsi Gabbard. I think she would do a lot to bridge the gap for independents and moderate Democrats where he's lacking, especially with women. My second choice would be Kristi Noem, because I just think she's amazing and she's done a lot for South Dakota.

Yeah, Alyssa, I think both are very strong on and for different reasons. I mean, yes, I think having a woman be able to go out and speak and kind of that difference between Donald Trump is, is probably a benefit on its own, even though there are other criteria is very different between them as a governor and a Congressman, a former Democrat. But I also think to remind a lot of folks listening and watching the show right now, who may or may not have initially supported President Trump in 2016, he was a total newcomer to Republican politics.

And you know, it donated a lot of money to Democrats in both sides, like most business people do. But certainly he was a total newcomer and look where he turned out to be one of most of our listeners, probably favorite Presidents ever, the picks he made to the US Supreme Court, the conservative policies on the border, fighting back against the bureaucracy and paying the price for doing that as he continues to pay the price now. So I think that there are a lot of folks in that Trump world would probably be more comfortable with Tulsi. I think traditional Republicans might be a little more concerned if you've been voting conservative, but I think what what what she brought up that was right, Logan, is that for independents who are looking for someone they know isn't just controlled by the Republican Party or even the Trump wing of the Republican Party, that that does, especially in a year where Biden's losing popularity amongst young people, it does bring some interesting opportunities. Yeah, I'm sure that is the conversation that's happening. I have no insider knowledge to know that's the conversation happening, but just looking at the facts. The facts is she would bring in a very different group of voters that currently President Trump may not have and currently Joe Biden may have. They may be leaning more towards that way, but if you can find someone who can kind of get that, you know, it's a crowd that's on X, the crowd that's listening to Rogan. This is what she is a regular on.

She obviously has a show on show on X. It is a different group of voters who are not as activated to vote traditionally Republican. So I think it's an interesting choice. I think most of the people on the list are well qualified. I don't look at that and go on that aren't on the list that likely are that just Laura Ingraham didn't have on that list. Again, a lot of that does come down to where you're asking people. So you're asking people in South Carolina what's on the top of their mind.

That's different than what may be on the top of mind. Someone got people all over the country. Let's go to Brad in Pennsylvania on line one, watching or listening on XM radio. That's great. Serious XM. Go ahead, Brad.

Well, thank you for everything you do. I actually have three names for the Trump ticket. I think for a vice President like Dr. Ben Carson.

Yep. For A.G. Trey Gowdy. How could you go wrong with Trey Gowdy? Secretary of Defense General Flynn. You know, I think it's interesting.

So the first one, Ben Carson, obviously another friend of the show, a friend of the family. So someone who would be an excellent pick. And I think everyone would. How old it's been these days. How old? Yeah. I could check his age.

I would assume he's. Because I think there's going to be some choice making around that too. 72. So I think that again, you have to consider that because a lot, not necessarily because it's the right thing, but because the media. Well, Tulsa, you get someone in their early 40s. Yeah. A lot of the others are in that range.

In the 50s and under group. So because the media is making age such a big deal and they're trying because they don't want to make it just about Joe Biden because they don't. But even when they compare the two, they say it's not so much age, it's what they look like on stage and how they perform.

And you can't deny that when Donald Trump's on stage and performs, he goes for an hour and a half and seems like he's loving it and hits back, punches back. But again, I think Ben Carson could be on that list. I just, if you're worried about age, age, age, and whether or not he wants to do it, that's a big part of the job too. Is if you want to be the vice President of the United States.

What we're seeing with Harris right now is maybe it's not always the smartest political move. Yeah. I think let's head up. Can we take a quick call? Can we go to Daniel in California on line four? Daniel's got his point of view. He's watching on YouTube, which we appreciate as well. Daniel, welcome. Hello, you guys. Thank you for all your hard work. I appreciate you guys.

And yes, I'm Daniel from Riverside, California. If I was Trump's consultant, Tulsi's a good choice, but I 100,000% will tell Trump to pick Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek could watch his back. Vivek comes from an immigrant family. He also, good representation of minority movement going to conservatism. And as well, he's young relatively to his age field. So that would be my consultation with President Trump.

You know, it's interesting. I think Vivek one could definitely land in the administration. I don't know if he's been involved in the political process long enough for it to reach enough Republicans because he popped up only in the primary really. But I think what he can do is end up in the administration in a prominent role, potentially even cabinet, and then continue to build on what you're talking about over the next four, because this is going to be a four year presidency if President Trump wins. I mean, this is all assuming that President Trump wins. And again, it's a four year presidency. So one of those people, or multiple of those people will be running for President to replace him after that because of the bar we have in the constitution. So continue to take your calls.

1-800-684-3110. I think plenty of different calls. Again, we're not just talking about this to talk about it.

It's because it's being brought up, and I think it's being brought up earlier because of the lack of a primary. Go to ACLJ.org. Support the work of the ACLJ. It's how we have people like Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Pompeo, Rick Rinnell on our team.

Go to ACLJ.org. Hey, welcome back to Stack Hill. We'll get right back to your calls about if you had to pick the vice President for President Trump right now. And it came up yesterday in a forum, Laura Ingraham hosted with the two remaining Republican candidates in South Carolina, President Trump and Nikki Haley. And she put forward the list of names. And he then said, yes, they're all on the list. He didn't say, those are the only people on my list, so I wouldn't take it that way. And he also didn't say, I would take that person or that person off, but the others are on the list. He said, they're all on the list right now. It's pretty broad.

So it also shows you that where his thinking is, at least publicly, is still broad. And you'll see potentially other names. I will remind you, like I did it again, it wasn't until July that Mike Pence was announced.

So you can take plenty of time when you've got a convention coming up. But it may be a little different this time because there has not been so much of a primary once, if President Trump wins South Carolina the way it looks like he could win by like 65%. And then he goes into Super Tuesday. And we're assuming the Supreme Court has at some point made clear that you can't just take him off the ballot. The primary is kind of over Logan. And so you could get a VP pick sooner because you need a strong surrogate for you to get out there.

It's whether you decide, yeah, you're right. Do you send them all out there? Do you send everyone out there? Cause you know, they've all essentially endorsed you instead of picking someone early and giving really a lot of time for ammunition against them. You know, months and months, that's not really great. That's why you saw Pence not getting picked until late. A lot of times, sure, this is decisions based on where the country's moving also over the summer. So you kind of want to decide on that. But also, is it because you don't want to give him too much time? It's kind of like the idea of why would he have debated? All you were doing was giving an opportunity for something to go wrong when you were leading with such an aggressive number.

So I feel like very similarly in that. I think it's also important as our producer pointed out, you've got the left trying to tie him up in court. So you need people who you trust to get out on the campaign trail. So if you could have 10 of those, but if that one who gets selected, certainly he's going to draw a bigger crowd.

Yeah, it'll be who it is going to be. And I think maybe you look at that. You start again, having some official events where they're the speaker, not President Trump, and they're the main draw, and start seeing, are they drawing the people in the places that they need to be drawing them? That doesn't just mean in the reddest of red states. You do need to draw them there, but you also need to be able to draw them in some places that are more purple or the states that President Trump just didn't carry. That he did win in 2016, that he didn't in 2020. Can they draw there? Obviously, you can't compare his crowd numbers to anyone. That's not fair.

But you just kind of start to see that. I think, again, I want to take... Let's go to before we get back to those calls, there is an ACLJ victory I do want to announce, because you know that this anti-Semitism is certainly growing. We've done an entire broadcast on it, and we'll talk even more about it tomorrow on the broadcast of what's happening to Israel.

Jeff Balaban, who oversees ACLJ Jerusalem, will be back in Israel. We represented a student at the State University of New York Downstate, which is in Brooklyn, New York. And on November of 2023, that student was called to a meeting with the dean after someone complained that she wore a t-shirt to class in support of the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces. Our client says she wore that shirt after other students came to class wearing clothes in support of Hamas. So in support of a recognized terrorist group by the United States of America.

None of those students were asked to meet with the dean. Because of this, our client reached out to us for help. So we met with the dean, and explained our client's rights to equal treatment, including the ability to wear expressive material in the classroom, especially since the school doesn't have a dress code requirement pertaining to symbols, flags, or political speech.

So you can say none of that or all of that, but you can't say Hamas is okay, but IDF and Israeli Defense Forces are not okay. But by doing that, the school quickly understood our position in the classroom, and the students were able to quickly understand our position, agreed that our client was free to wear her IDF t-shirt to class, and that she should have not been singled out by the school, and by the way, was reprimanded. So I want anybody out there who potentially has heard about this happening to their students or another student to know, to contact us at aclj.org help.

You see, in this matter, it just took, you know, a meeting. You didn't have to file a federal lawsuit, but it makes sure that the policy is clear at that school, which is a huge school, but it also, when these stories then run in the news, it makes sure other schools know, hey, we better not reprimand students because they wear a shirt that says IDF if we're allowing other students to wear political shirts, or we have a policy that allows students to do that. So if you find yourself in that situation, it costs you absolutely nothing to contact and even work with the ACLJ at aclj.org slash help, because now Logan wearing a pro-Israel shirt can get you reprimanded at a college. Yeah, we've seen that now nationwide, and look, if you want to be a part of it, you may not have been someone who's experiencing these things, but you want to support people that have, you can sign our petition right now, we have it on our website, just go to aclj.org, whether that's universities banning students, you know, from wearing their t-shirts to even the Biden administration, so you're to reward, you know, different terrorists with funding and the attacks on Israel that have gone way beyond the battlefield, you can just join us in a big support of Israel right now, all you need to do is go to aclj.org, you'll see it right there on the side of the screen, sign that petition today, join the fight with Israel with us, sign that petition.

Yeah, it doesn't cost you anything to sign those petitions, they matter, they are important, especially now, I will tell you, I'm hearing it from both sides of the aisle, we need Americans who support Israel to be speaking out, and one of those ways to speak out is letting your members of Congress know that you stand with Israel, and we're getting that to, again, whether it's a senator who's a Democrat or a Republican, or a Congress with a Democrat or Republican, they need to know the majority of their constituents are not part of who they may see at a protest supporting Hamas or the Palestinians, but that you support Israel, and you expect them to keep their promises because most of them run on both sides of the aisle, most do run on supporting Israel, so go to aclj.org and sign that petition, our own Mike Pompeo, he just got back from Israel on a fact-finding mission, I mean, again, this war continues, we need you to let your voice be heard, aclj.org, Logan, let's get back to the phones because people, let's take one, let's go to Lynette who's calling from New York on line three, you're on the air, so listen on the radio. Hey Lynette. Thank you for, hello, thank you so much for taking my call, and while I think that all of the people that were mentioned are magnificent, most of them I would personally like to see in some other positions within President Trump's cabinet or something along those lines, I would really like to see Dr. Ben Carson as the Vice President because for many reasons, one of them being that he is an actual medical doctor and a world recognized genius as far as separating twins born at the joint at the head and all this type of thing, so I think, and he's already been in President Trump's administration, so he already knows not only how to work well with him, but also just an expert in history, has a clear understanding of radical Islam, knows about challenges as far as housing in the inner city, and like I say, a medical doctor, he would, there would never be such confusion and fear and everything else. Hey Lynette, I don't mean to cut you off, we are running out of time in this segment, I appreciate that, another big call for Ben Carson, I think a lot of people love Ben Carson. He was a popular when he ran for President, and for a time period was the top choice, and I think you just have to look at, again, whether he's interested in it.

Still could happen. And of course, you know, is that where that moves politically, but again, like Lynette said, I think most people on this list are people that could end up in the administration. That's right, stay on hold, we're gonna get to your phone calls, we're gonna go to Israel, also aclj.org to sign that petition to support Israel. Hey, I see a lot of people saying Jordan, I'm not sure if they mean Jim Jordan, but maybe they mean you, vice versa. I'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome back to Sekulow. So the vice Presidential issue came up last night in the town hall forum with President Trump and Laura Ingraham, and we asked you, if you had to pick today, again, so you're not locked in, but if you had to pick today, who would you advise President Trump to pick?

Or if you were President Trump, who would you pick? We'll get right to the phone. And you responded, let's get to as many of these as we can this segment. Let's go to Linda, who's calling in Texas with different point of view.

Watch on YouTube. Linda, welcome. Hi, thank you.

I just think I would pick Larry Elder. And I think one, he was cheated off the first debate stage. And two, he is grace under fire. He knows what he's talking about. He's very clear. He doesn't get antagonistic or intimidated. And I just really think he'd be a great fit for President Trump's personality.

But he's very knowledgeable. And I love the way he ran his campaign in California. I was sad he didn't succeed.

But I saw the way he was treated unjustly. And then when the debate thing, and he didn't get on stage to even get heard, that kind of sealed it for me. I just really, I mean, you know, there's always those issues of the percentages and what you've got to be at to get the debates on stage.

It's always going to be a question for you about that. So you have Larry Elder, very well respected, but lost in California pretty majorly at a time, in a moment where he really, if there was going to be a time that would have been it with the Newsome recall and everything. And then you have Elder again, runs for President, does not do very well. Can't even make the debate stage, whether she feels it was just or unjust. If you're President Trump or whoever, do you want those two losses? Because losing, probably not as your VP, because losing the nomination for President is one thing. That's that's something that's fair, but if you are going at it, you've lost now running this and you've lost, you couldn't even make it to the game.

Right. It feels like that's almost a little bit insurmountable to overcome those losses. And we've seen it happen, but not very often. If they do it where they're like, well, I lost locally, now I'm going for the President. Because you have like Tulsi Gabbard, Tulsi obviously did not get the Democratic nominee.

However, she spent years before, so with victories. Let's go to Randy who's called in Texas, line two. Randy, you're on the air.

YouTube. Oh my goodness. First time caller, long time listener. I'll keep it short guys. I want to say God bless you and thank you for sticking up for the Everyday American at the ACLJ. Guys, this country is growing a hunger for a woman to be President. It's going to keep, it's going to grow and grow until one is finally elected.

I think this time he's going to do it. And I was, I was curious to know what you guys thought were about Representative Elise Stefanik from New York. I'll hang up and listen. Thank you. Cool. Thanks Randy.

I'll let Jordan tell you that. I've known Elise when she was in the campaign world and government world. And now as a leader in the Republican Party of the House of Representatives, there's been entire articles in the political world inside Washington writing about her as a potential VP. So I think that's someone also who may not have been on the list for Laura Ingraham in the crowd in South Carolina, but certainly is in, is on the list, I would think, because of just the amount of articles and the amount of speculation surrounding that. Again, it's a pretty big list right now.

I think Elise would be on the younger side of that, probably like Vivek brothers, around that age group. But she's obviously been very accomplished in herding some cats in Washington DC at a time when it has not been easy. She was instrumental in making sure we had a speaker. And not, again, Kevin McCarthy, but to get Mike Johnson there through the very difficult and narrow majority that we have in the House of Representatives. So she's been on the list, I think, and remains on the list. But you have to also look at how do we look in the House when you're running for Republican President. What you don't want to have happen is you took too many good people out of the House or Senate and you end up not having the House or Senate because we know what a Democrat-run House and Senate would do to President Trump. Start with impeachment number three.

Yeah. Hey, what I like about this list, if you go through whether it's Tim Scott, whether it was Elise, whether that was even Kristi Noem and obviously Tulsi Gabbard, these are all people that are friends of the ACLJ, some we've worked with directly, some that you have real relationships with, and it shows some of the impact that we have here and what it means obviously to be an ACLJ supporter. So I encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. Stay on hold if you're on hold. We'll do our best to get to you with some of your picks as well. But we are going to shift gears a little bit. We got Rick Rinnell joining us in the next segment, and then we're going to discuss what's going on in Israel later on with Jeff Balabon. So it's going to be a packed rest of the show. So stay tuned.

Again, go to ACLJ.org. Sign that petition to support Israel right now. Welcome back to Secio. We've got Rick Rinnell on our team joining us. He's at CPAC right now in Washington, D.C. And Rick, first I just want to go to you on CPAC and kind of like the energy there.

This is the main CPAC. What are you feeling? And I would imagine most of the attendees there feel like the Republican primary is about done. You got me, Rick? We'll fix Rick's audio. We'll get back to him on that once we get the sound back.

You guys will let me know. Rick also, by the way, we were talking about all these people in the Trump administration, former cabinet member, of course, of the Trump administration, who also could be on that list for vice President, would certainly be qualified to be on that list. And I think you're going to see a lot of those names end up serving in the administration. Should I take a call, Will, before we get... Or is Rick back? Okay, so Rick, I want to go to you on CPAC, kind of the feel there. Most of the time, CPAC in Presidential years around February, you've got a lot of campaigns there. There's straw polls.

I've worked them before. And the primary season is really just starting. Is it different feeling this year that the primary season is basically done?

Yeah, I think you hit it right on the head. CPAC is very exciting. It's just starting. So tonight, I think the leaders are gathering.

Tomorrow is the first day. But usually, we have a big debate going on about the Presidential election. This one, however, everybody knows it's over.

President Trump will be speaking at CPAC on Saturday and then going to South Carolina right after that. But I think the latest polls have him up 35 points against Nikki Haley in her own state. So I think this thing is toast. Yeah, I just get that kind of get that kind of reaction there. It's a very different kind of feel. I mean, still a lot of excitement, I'm sure. But just remembering my campaign days there and those straw polls, because everybody would wait for that straw poll to come out. And now it's just kind of a different time that we're in February, still this early, and it feels like the primary is over. But there are some other serious topics I wanted to talk to you about, Rick, because they're being spun both ways. And I think especially the Biden administration trying to spin the Russia mantle onto President Trump once again, because of an interview that President Putin did this, not with Tucker Carlson, this with with Russian media, I want to play it for people.

Of course, it's dubbed over. But this is what Putin had to say about who he prefers to be the next President of the United States. When asked by an interviewer who he would like to see when the next US election, Putin replied, Biden.

Biden. He's a more experienced person. He's predictable. He's a politician of the old formation.

But we will work with any US leader that the American people have confidence in. I think, again, you know, he's playing it carefully, too. He knows who the actual President is right now. But I think, Rick, he does want Joe Biden again.

It's for one word in there specifically, predictable. Which means he can figure out what President Biden's going to do way before he does it. He knows what he will and won't do. He feels like he's got him.

He's got to read on him. Tradition and known and predictable is exactly what foreign governments want. They don't want surprise.

They don't want to not be able to figure out the President. I'm reminded of a conversation that I had with Chancellor Merkel when I was in Berlin as ambassador to Germany. And she said to me, you know, I feel like I just can't figure out Donald Trump. And that scares me because I just don't know what he's going to do next.

And I remember Jordan thinking to myself, don't smile too much right now. Understand that she's nervous about this moment. But I said to her, I said, well, look, as an American, I've waited my whole life to have a President that is totally unpredictable, that no one can figure out. Because then people are respectful of the President. And I think what we're seeing from Putin, he doesn't respect Joe Biden. He knows exactly where Joe Biden is going. And he would rather have the safe, predictable, so that he can make his moves rather than sit around and say, oh, gosh, what is the United States going to do under Trump?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that predictable word, when you hear that out of kind of an adversary right now, that's kind of the worst thing you could say about someone that you're saying you wish you would be the President again. But we're seeing the Biden administration, Rick, saying, oh, that's because he's trying to hurt Biden. He wants Donald Trump there because he controls Donald Trump.

I mean, it's like the exact opposite. I mean, and I know everybody's going to spin everything. But here we have any moment they can seize back on Russia and try to put this on Trump after how many times we've beaten it back and showed us the exact opposite and that we didn't see invasions of Ukraine. And I don't think there would have been a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Like President Trump says, I agree with him on that because he would have if he was in office that again, it looks like this is they're back to that playbook. Imagine for a second if Vladimir Putin had said, I prefer Donald Trump. Just imagine what the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, what all of these reporters in Washington, they would have melted down.

We would still be seeing front page stories on what this means because Russia wants Trump and it's Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia. Look, these people, you cannot win with these types in Washington. They change the rules when they lose. They literally crush dissenting voices. They want everyone to agree. But we should say it often. We should say it loud and we should say it widely. The fact is that Vladimir Putin wants Joe Biden to be President of the United States.

Yeah. And you're so right to point that out that the left in the media, mainstream media, if he had said President Trump, they would have taken Putin at his word that he's 100% truthful. He's not trying to play a game.

He's not trying to help Joe Biden at all. So there is no way to win if you're President Trump when it comes to at least the issue specifically of Russia and any of these types of statements come out. But I think, again, when you hear that word predictable, that's the one that really just kind of just got locked in my mind is that's exactly what is the problem is that we draw red lines and we don't necessarily follow up on those red lines or even when we do, we can't explain what we're exactly doing and that's what's troubling the American people about Ukraine right now is we don't really, can't really tell us what is this in-game goal, like when does, how does this come to an end so people stop getting killed and we stop having to use the resources that we're depleting ourselves of. And again, we just don't get that from the Biden administration or the Biden team, but we also get warning about nuclear weapons in orbit this year by Russia. I mean, it's like a kind of a catch-22 because you don't want to not take Russia seriously. They did invade Ukraine and there were Republican members concerned about what they're doing in space and whether or not our administration is paying the right attention to where we should on what Russia is doing. Well, look, Donald Trump created Space Force because we were very concerned about what the China, by the way, and Russians and what all these other actors were doing.

So we, so Donald Trump created this force in space to be able to protect. I want to go back to that word predictable for a second and just expand upon it because how that translates when it comes to war is everybody knows the phrase, a threat of military action is exactly what the United States wants, but actually what the phrase is, is a credible threat of military action, not just a threat. Of course, the United States has a threat of military action, but if it's not a credible threat, if people don't believe you'll actually do it, or you just may come up with a surprise, if it's a credible threat of military action, then you are unpredictable in how you're going to respond in a crisis. And that is exactly what Putin is talking about. He knows that Donald Trump has a credible threat of military action and he's unpredictable and he doesn't like that.

Yeah. I mean, I think again, when we talk about these world leaders and there's the shift we've seen in Europe happening right now, Rick, with more conservative leaders as well, who are not working as well with Biden, I want to talk to you too about some of the NATO criticism when President Trump is just basically making the case that, you know, do we really want to be the only country that's going to send our brave men and women over to die for countries who aren't even willing to put money into the program, into their own militaries, so they can fight back against attacks on their own countries and kind of just rethinking NATO in 2024, not saying demolish this unity that we have, but to rethink where it is in 2024. Look, we have to start, whenever we talk about NATO, we have to always remind people that the entirety of NATO agrees that Putin is a madman and he must be stopped on his offensive behavior.

But inherent in that idea is that we have to be unpredictable. We can't just decide to write blank checks and expect there to be a win. Money doesn't always win wars. I would say that if money won wars that we would have had a very different outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to win that war over 20 years, those two wars. And what I think the American people are saying is we don't want to get into that with Ukraine.

I think that a military response and a military plan is always appropriate, but side by side should be a peace plan. And what I was struck with in the Tucker Carlson interview is that Vladimir Putin said he hasn't spoken to Joe Biden in more than two years. Think about that. They're not speaking, but Joe Biden is asking for billions of dollars in U.S. tax dollars to keep funding a war.

I think that's crazy. That is. Rick, we appreciate you joining us from CPAC and we'll keep checking in with you and having you part of our team. But yeah, just think about that, folks.

Two years, you're not even trying to talk to Putin about ending this conflict, which is costing Ukrainian lives, Russian lives, and American money. We'll be right back on Secular. Welcome back to Secular. I know some of you are still holding on.

We'll try to get to those at the very end of the show. If you've been holding on with us, with your VP pick since that came up with Laura Ingraham in a forum with President Trump last night, one of the people who got a lot of applause is somebody who works with us on Secular. That's Tulsi Gabbard. But I wanted to also go to this issue and bring in Jeff Balaban, who oversees our office in the ACLJ Jerusalem. This was a letter from Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas to President Biden. And he asked President Biden, Jeff, in your recent executive order targets Israelis. We've talked about this with sanctions who are, quote, in the West Bank. Does this include Jerusalem? If so, what parts of Jerusalem? What are the borders within Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, that you were using for purposes of implementing the executive order? And please provide your response by February 27th, 2024, because his administration has had a tough time actually defining this, Jeff.

Well, absolutely. They've given no serious thought to this as a policy matter, as a strategic matter, and therefore no serious thought to how many lives it would cost. This is a pure political move by them. They think it appeals to domestic constituency. But the whole concept is nonsensical.

It's dead on arrival in Israel. It makes no sense under American law and makes no sense in terms of America's interests. And so Tom Cotton is actually pointing out the absurdity of using a phrase like the West Bank when it's not even actually a defined term. You know, it brings up these complications for people. They talk about, you know, these are supposed to be violent actors, Israelis who are in the West Bank legally, by the way.

And then, I mean, Jeff, you go through the list. And like you said, I mean, it's hard to find these Jewish violent actors that need to be sanctioned. It just seemed like something nasty to do just to do something nasty about Jews in Israel. That's exactly right.

It's now become an important way to what they call virtue signal. It's not to say you're pro-this or pro-that other than you're pro-Palestinian, which essentially means you hate Jews. You're anti-Semitic. You're anti-Israel.

That's all that means. Pro-Palestinian equals the river to the sea, which is to say genocide. And so this is the constituency that Joe Biden now finds himself trying to preach to, trying to bring in, trying to persuade. It's not just a constituency of voters, which is tragic and dangerous. It's a constituency of the people working in the administration. It's the constituency of the State Department, people on this campaign who are outraged that he hasn't been more anti-Israel.

Well, this is bad enough. Pushing the idea of a terror state, which is what everyone knows this would be, as a reward for a terror war, which everyone knows this is, is disastrous. We've also got, again, an administration when they're asked at the congressional hearings, because they keep talking about a Palestinian state with the UK and trying to create that at the end of this conflict, whatever that is. And then they get asked, and these undersecretaries are like, well, who would even run this? I mean, if you're talking about doing this a year out, who would you support as the United States to run this so-called new Palestinian state? Who do you believe would actually do it? They don't have any names in mind.

An unbelievable video of Congressman Mast asking... Let's play it for people, Jeff. I want them to be able to see it and we'll talk about it. So having looked at it objectively, which I would assume somebody in your position does, who would you assess would lead that Palestinian state? Pick a group. You can name a group, but I'm saying Hamas, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah, some other group.

Who would lead it? I think that has to be something that's considered. I don't think I'm in a position to say that right now. Who did you objectively assess would lead it in determining you have support for a Palestinian state? I don't, I don't want to, I don't think that I can answer that question.

I think this has, this is part of a larger discussion. So you objectively assess that you support a Palestinian state in objectively assessing that. Who do you assess would lead that state? What group that does not receive military support from say Iran do you assess would lead that, that state?

I understand your question, but I think I would have to have a little, I would, I don't feel comfortable saying that without having more understanding. Have you not assessed what group would lead it? Have you or have you not assessed who would become the leader of that Palestinian state? This is part of a larger discussion.

But have you or have you not assessed that? She, she is the undersecretary, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, who said that she has supports a Palestinian state, but cannot either has not been given clearance by the administration or the administration probably doesn't know either who on earth could actually run that Palestinian state that they have assessed should be created. Well, look, I'm actually here and you're not familiar with this background because I'm, I'm temporarily working here today.

Today was an entire day. I arrived back in Israel and I'm in the center of the country now, both giving and receiving exactly this, which is strategic threat assessments, security assessments based essentially on the new political situation in Washington, which has nothing to do with the best interests of the people living here, Jews and Arabs, right? I mean, what they're talking about here is catastrophic.

The pressure is catastrophic and, and it elevates all the security threats and concerns. And I'm here giving and receiving briefings today on these exact issues because this is pure domestic politics in America. It is life and death here in Israel. Back in Israel too, I think an update too, this conflict has, has gone on a serious amount of time. I mean, Israel in the past has been used to sometimes quicker conflicts.

Of course, they're used to conflict, unfortunately. But how is it wearing on the people of Israel? It's a, it's, it's a very emotional place. It's, it's, it's the entire country has been traumatized first by the acts of October 7th and what was discovered afterwards. The, the duration of this with the hostages, when people don't know their fates or they hear their fates, and now more and more stories are coming out that, that some of them are carrying certain diseases, very terrible diseases that they picked up when they were there. And so this endless, and now, but a lot of the soldiers are coming home, reservists are coming home. So there are family reunions, but they're just beginning themselves to process. They're out of the heat of battle.

It's been months long. They have to fit back into society. A report came out today that the war so far cost Israel 20% of its GDP. So this country is being battered on all fronts. And the last thing it needs is an American administration jumping on and making it worse, because honestly, that's the one country, the United States of America is the one country that has always had Israel's back when it needed it.

And it does not have Israel's back now. Jeff, as always, we appreciate you joining us from Israel. And when you're back in the United States and giving us these updates, just quickly, this issue that also involves your home state in New York, in SUNY, we were able to handle this quickly for a student who wore an IDF shirt to class while they were students wearing Hamas shirts. She had called into the dean's office and reprimanded, contacted us at ACLJ. We got on, got into the meeting with the dean and made that shirt, made it clear that she can wear that shirt and should not have been reprimanded and made sure that if that's happening to anybody else around the country right now, they need to contact us at ACLJ.org slash help.

It doesn't cost a thing and oftentimes doesn't mean we have to go to court, but it's happening at these universities, Jeff, all over the country. Yeah, this is a very brave student. She was willing to work with us.

I mean, she came to us for help and we got right in there. The dean honestly had no idea what they were talking about and didn't understand how offensive it was, that supporting the IDF is worse than supporting Hamas. And so they made it, you know, we said everyone has to be treated equally and they understood and it took a little education and we got to the right result here. It's great and it's just a great victory by the ACLJ and it just shows you again, you don't always have to go to court. Our experts sometimes just meet with the dean and make sure that reprimand is taken back and that student has their rights restored and they're apologized to. As you said, Jeff, really it's a brave student to wear the shirt.

Not that it should be against the rules, but to be brave to wear the shirt. Of course, we have successfully defended that student. We just registered and delivered a critical oral intervention to the UN Human Rights Council to defend Israel.

Our own Mike Pompeo just returned from Israel. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Sign the petition to join the fight to stand with Israel. It doesn't cost a thing and your members of Congress need to know you stand with Israel.

It's a critical time. ACLJ.org.